March 10, 2013

... might be the only viable solution to America's low birth rate problem. They get the vapors, they might be vapid, and Harry vapes.

Listen to the desperation as they sidetrack into the topic of whether the children of conservative religionists will veer into decently acceptable liberalism (and become... tattoo artists!). They never return to the issue of whether religion is needed to keep the population going into the future. If the offspring don't maintain the conservative values that caused their parents to have children, how do you get the next generation?

Listen to the desperation as the sidetrack into the topic of whether the children of conservative religionists will veer into decently acceptable liberalism...

I can't bring myself to listen, not even for 242 seconds. But I can answer the question pretty easily. Since Ann Coulter is perfectly correct -- modern liberalism is a form of religion in its own right, complete to mythology and dogma -- not many will change their religion.

In a lot of sci-fi dystopias, the children are born in test tubes and raised by the government. When I read Brave New World though, I hadn't realized that the real reason why the state was in charge of all this is that people would stop reproducung in a socialust utopia. I now suspect that whatever Huxley may have thought when he introduced this element he actually had an intuition that the children of alphas would get into the right daycare, then preschool, then prep school, then university, the betas would go to public schools in good neighborhoods, then state universities and so on. And once the game was completely rigged by the meritocratic "elite" humanity would realize that trying ti have and raise their own kids wasn't worth the bother.

Also I've been guilty of talking about this issue in a manner, that makes it sound like we should only have children for the sake of the economy.

Children aren't economical, they're a part of nature. The outcomes though of at least not being more accepting of larger families (for those who want them) though do have economic repercussions.

To only 'produce' one productive citizen takes immense time and energy. The reason why Massachusetts has for example really good educational outcomes, is partly because of smaller families, so two parents can afford the costs of college for one child. How can two professional parents even help out for three or four children when it comes to college???

The subtext of that conversation, no matter what they're saying, is that the woman wants to get married and the guy wants to get laid. Other subtext: isn't it a shame that people as enlightened as us don't want to have ten children.

We need, desperately, to bring back shame. You only have one kid, John? Can't get it up, eh? Firing blanks.

I keep thinking of that thread of a week or so ago that was based on the picture of college kids in the 60s and there were no fat people in the pics. None. I have since been looking at other pictures from the period and am finding it hard to find fatties in the pictures: crowd scenes, street scenes, family snap shots. A dearth of fatties. Fattie fattie two by four.... Shame works.

Meh, it has been known for quite a long time that there is not a single irreligious group out there that has shown an ability sustain/grow their own society.

That those who consider themselves educated are only now noticing this indicates just how slow our schools leave their graduates.

Over the long term I'm not worried about it as the ideals that cause a loss of interest in having families will die off and those that promote it will grow. It is, however, going to suck in the short term.

And on a side note I would like to state my belief that a species that is dependent upon technology to even conceive the numbers necessary to maintain their existence is already extinct (it's just a matter of waiting).

Never, ever, ask a northeastern urban ethnic (e.g. Harry Siegel) about the state of the American republic.

Because, if you do, you'll get a naval-gazing answer like he gives. That's right, Harry, the prime example of religious conservatives in the US are the Haredim, which are what, 0.8% of the population?

But, Ms Yarrow, from the South blows his musings away with one simple empirical fact: "Well the South is still clinging to it's God & guns, right?" That may have something to do with the fact that Ms Yarrow has seen a form of southern Protestantism that represents about 40% of the country up close & personal.

When he was going through the litany of issues religious people bring to the society, I kept waiting for him to say "intolerance of others." I assume the thought occurred and that's why he turned into Ralph Kramden.

I'm not going to watch those two goobers, but I will say that yesterday my family and I were at the gun counter of an army/navy store, and next in line to be helped was a family with six children, the oldest of which was maybe 8 and the youngest was on the mom's hip. Feel safe in assuming that they were in church this morning, and that their genes and values are going to prevail over the self-defeating Amanda Marcottes of the world.

Erika says:I'm not going to watch those two goobers, but I will say that yesterday my family and I were at the gun counter of an army/navy store, and next in line to be helped was a family with six children, the oldest of which was maybe 8 and the youngest was on the mom's hip. Feel safe in assuming that they were in church this morning, and that their genes and values are going to prevail over the self-defeating Amanda Marcottes of the world.

That's a distinct possibility. The first ten minutes or so of the movie "Idiocracy" addressed this and I'm sure you're doing your part.

On the other hand, in the words of Judge Smalls in "Caddyshack", the world needs ditch diggers too. So that's another possibility.

The final statement is all you need to hear:Oh the eternal frustration of the progressive leftist:How can the progressive leftist, who knows all, inspire silly bible thumpers to relinquish their silly bible-thumping ways?Leftism is the religion you need. Can't you see!?

It’s so frustrating that people thump bibles instead of worship at the altar of the liberal progressive leftwing statist big government sacred golden cow. The statist teat will take care of you. You don’t need a steeeenking Bible. Religion is poison.

I figured out something recently. Generally speaking leftists/statists do not have as many children. And yet they have so much control over our education system, entertainment culture, and political system.

Here is what I figured out. They are happy for *others* to reproduce and have children, and invest all the time, pain, sweat, money, effort, and so on to create and care for those children...

So long as they get to take those children and turn them into good little progressive statists. Have you ever noticed how much it bothers them that conservative and/or religious people might pass on their values to their children? And yet never seem concerned that leftist/progressive parents (who do exist) pass on their values to their children? The purpose of college is to help young people "question everything they were taught", but apparently not what they were taught by leftist/progressive parents. How does one explain the consistency of this inconsistency?

"You do all the work. We reap the benefits. You plough and plant. We get the harvest."

Lot of code words and wink,wink, nod, nods. going on in that conversation. Notice for example the use of the phrase "ultra-religious" vs. the usual left-wing "Religious Right". You can also see a a lot hesitant self-censoring by Harry.

Evolutionary fitness is the principal imperative which directs description of criteria for classifying behaviors for normalization, tolerance, and rejection.

Since we also recognize individual dignity, and that individuals may contribute indirectly to the fitness of a society through means other than procreation, we compromise and tolerate unproductive behaviors.

We reject behaviors which are strictly dysfunctional, typically those which violate individual dignity or prematurely and capriciously abort a human life, and tolerate others when they do not require involuntary or fraudulent exploitation.

We also reject behaviors which are otherwise tolerated when they achieve some critical mass in a society and exhibit an uncontrolled progression to dysfunctional convergence.

It's a tragic irony that people who place their faith in evolution as a description of origin, reject evolutionary principles as inconvenient and are therefore justified to selectively adhere to its principles.

It is possible to reconcile the natural order, human morality, and dreams of material, physical, and ego gratification; but, it will not be done through normalization of dysfunctional behaviors, especially through those which denigrate individual dignity and devalue human life.

On the other hand, the principles of evolution do not necessarily apply to a species as a whole, but to select minorities. Who will control the population through abortion and indoctrination to increase their fitness. Who will replace inferior or obstinate members with legal and illegal aliens.

It is perplexing when certain people do not respect individual dignity or refer to human men and women as breeders. As if they are lower forms of life, mere animals to be exploited in service of their interests. As if pursing an enlightened state and perpetuating humanity is not the goal. Only dreams of material, physical, and ego instant (or immediate) gratification is worthy of their ambitions.

Religion may not be strictly required for optimal conformance with evolutionary principles; but, certain individuals demonstrate a superior appreciation of evolutionary fitness and human morality. Their faith engenders principles which promotes individual and general Welfare, for themselves and their Posterity.

Their solution is indoctrination. Unfortunately, a mother and father have first rights, and external indoctrination efforts often fail. This is where emotional extortion comes into play. We are especially susceptible to this form of exploitation when we are young, have limited awareness and limited self-control.

The prime directive given in Genesis is to be fruitful and multiply. It may just be a coincidence, but the principles described in this text are progenitors to modern evolutionary theory (less the article of faith which describes our simian heritage).

One of my wife's sisters is a Unitarian/Universalist. They are almost uniformly progressive. Sometimes she goes to church with us and we return the favor with her. We attend Methodist and Presbyterian churches, depending on where we are. It is noticeable that the Unitarian/Universalist church has almost no children. Not true for Methodists and Presbyterians.

St. Croix, so are elderly or post menopausal women who have sexual desire a fluke? Beyond childbearing years should couples no longer engage in sexual activity? Would it be weird? What about elderly men, is it OK because they could still father children?

This discussion posits a need to create a next generation. As nervous as that makes the orthodox liberal environmentalist, he does admit that there is a question.

To understand real enemy of Judeo-Christian faith procreation affirming culture we have to contrast them with the increasing numbers of Malthsians who are pushing to eliminate surplus people.

In the late 1800s the rational Philosophers merged Malthus' arithmetic about human food supply with Darwin's new doctrine that all life progresses by a continuous contest among existing life forms to kill the others and steal their stuff first in order to survive.

Of course that gives us the basic Nazi teaching which only had to add a "Master Race" concept into it based upon mythical Caucasians who who still had pure inbred Psychic Powers.

You can take PETA, and Greenpeace and the UN Species Protection racquet and all you get is another murderous Nazi cult.

Not that there is anything wrong with that since it culls the population by first killing the Jews and then killing the Christians. Problem solved.

This discussion posits a need to create a next generation. As nervous as that makes the orthodox liberal environmentalist, he does admit that there is a question.

To understand real enemy of Judeo-Christian faith procreation affirming culture we have to contrast them with the increasing numbers of Malthsians who are pushing to eliminate surplus people.

In the late 1800s the rational Philosophers merged Malthus' arithmetic about human food supply with Darwin's new doctrine that all life progresses by a continuous contest among existing life forms to kill the others and steal their stuff first in order to survive.

Of course that gives us the basic Nazi teaching which only had to add a "Master Race" concept into it based upon mythical Caucasians who who still had pure inbred Psychic Powers.

You can take PETA, and Greenpeace and the UN Species Protection racquet and all you get is another murderous Nazi cult.

Not that there is anything wrong with that since it culls the population by first killing the Jews and then killing the Christians. Problem solved.

Somefeller, so is everyone with a large family stupid and lives in a trailer park?

Obviously not. Like everything else in life, it depends on the individual case. But if the shoe fits...

And this is your latest installment of simple answers to simple questions.

some phony folksy, in his usual unthinking arrogance, lets the cat out of the bag by telling us the Lefties really don't care about people, as such, but they do need thralls to justify their existence.

Actually, many large families have at least 2, and sometimes more, degrees between them. Some phony folksy takes a look around Mom's basement and figures everybody smart is just like him.

Somefeller, I mentioned my encounter with a large family that appeared to align with clinger-y cultural values, and you immediately compared that with Idiocracy, suggesting that those people--whom you have never met and know nothing about--are stupid, uncultured, etc. You also implied the same about me. I am asking on what evidence you are basing your claims. You have provided none.

Erika, a lot of people with big families are as college-educated as the DINKs.

One of my product managers when i was in insurance had 11 kids.

The Blonde's best bud's second daughter (she's a nurse, he's a minister) has 4, working on #5, and wants 8. One of her nieces (hubbo is also a nurse and an accredited chef) has 3 and will have #4 when she finishes her 2nd nursing degree.

As the shrinking proportion of black people in this country tends to suggest, a good many of the poor are aborting their kids; the welfare queen of the 50s and 60s with 15 kids and a different father for each one is a thing of the past.

Oh, Ed, don't worry, I know full well that somefeller is full of shit. It's just that I prefer to ask people to explain their thought process when they are saying things I believe to be untrue.

Somefeller, I'm not seeing anything in your comments other than "People I don't like are stupid! And you're stupid too!" Can you explain your thinking in better depth so that I can give it proper consideration?

When I was growing up in the '50's and '60's, all enlightened thinkers worried that the lower orders of human kind would outbreed the higher orders, and overwhelm us. If you think that the push for legalized abortion was ONLY about sexual liberation, you weren't around then, or weren't paying attention -- it was also about reducing the numbers of the "lesser breeds without the law".

Now, China is beginning to see the consequences of its one-child-per-family policies, in the excess of males over females (more females having been aborted), and in the aging of the population (fewer young workers relative to the older generation that needs to be supported). The crisis of Social Security in the US also reflects the fact that we current retirees didn't produce enough off-spring to support us.

If liberals don't want the religious folks to take over the country, you better get going and propagate!

The Shakers were a small Christian sect which did not believe in "being fruitful". All that remains is a style of furniture. For all I know, they all got into heaven--which would mean that their beliefs were right. But right or not, they were not enduring.

Progressivism is much the same, but in different degrees. They do reproduce, if at low rates. There are lots more progressives than there ever were of Shakers. They will die-out, it will take longer and they will leave behind some cultural relics.

I went to Church today. The children outnumbered the adults. And (just a guess -- never actually asked -- but judging by professions) the amount of men and women without at least a Bachelor's degree is probably under 30%.

So now we see the end result of all the Left's social engineering. People whose attitude is "The future? Just keep the checks coming til I'm dead, and the future can go hang!" Can't really imagine this present lot planting oak trees, under whose shade they will never sit.

As a conservative woman and mother of two, who knows plenty of other conservatives who have about two or more children (from three to seven) who are also religious, I sure am enjoying every single minute of the cries of desperation coming from those two.

Harry has a point there. Ultra-religious communities (e.g. Muslims in Europe, Orthodox in Israel, FLDS in Arizona) can only maintain their high birthrates with the generous support of a welfare state to which they contribute very little. Not having to work frees up a lot of energy for religious study, prayer, and baby-making. It also reduces the need to interact with non-believers.

Does anyone reading this have more than 2.5 kids?? I have 9 and I know many families with 6+ kids in my neck of the woods. (Note: we are all of a certain religious persuasion, but NOT one mentioned in the video)

NONE of these families, including my own, has ever been on welfare and most of the mothers are SAHMs. I have no idea where that notion comes from.

Religious belief encourages procreation for many reasons. One that is hardly ever mentioned is that it is just basically looked at as GOOD, for individuals and society! Do you know anyone - even liberal/progressive minded people- who tell you they regret having children? THINKING about having a lot of kids is scary, actually HAVING the kids, while it may be hard and require self-sacrifice and self-control, is really quite enjoyable and enriching in so many ways.

And, yes, I love telling the horrified people who ask me "Are they ALL yours?!?" that my kids and others of like minds will some day take over the world.

Ann, this is why the Liberal Left is hanging on so desperately to Academia...they need to in order to indoctrinate the next generation of Liberals...after all, they are literally breeding themselves out of the picture.

What is even better is the cohort of religious youths are going to be expected to pay for the pensions and social security of the Boomer generation. As religious people, they may well decide to do so out of the goodness of their hearts and as charity, but they will be busy evangelizing as their part of the deal in return.

The alternative is they refuse to pay for welfare, social security and government pensions, which may be a more fitting end for the Boomer generation, having to atone for their sins in the end.....